Right. You could make a bit-by-bit copy of a DVD without the slightest idea of its contents. You'd need the decrypting method to view the contents. However, the manufacturers of all "licensed" DVD players/software conveniently provide the decryption for you.
He has children to support. He's not living in a cheap part of the country. I doubt he's volunteering at a commercial company. (Especially when every article about his says that he works there, as does he.)
Um, no. If I buy a plane kit, and the instructions for the engine are wrong, I don't only have myself to blame. IANAL, so I'm not sure who is legally liable in such a case.
Yes, of course, but the typical commercial license has the same sort of clause. A question might be: if Microsoft should be liable for damage due to negligence (e.g. inadequate macro virus security), should open source authors be accountable for similar negligence?
You're right: Netcraft confirms that IIS is growing in number of pages. Just not as fast as Apache.:)
Number of pages is a meaningless statistic: most large sites have a fair amount of dynamic content nowadays. Of course, one can argue that the number of hostnames is also a meaningless statistic, but I challenge you to find a better one.
Is there a simple engine that I can download? All you'd need to do is brute-force the possibilities. I might be very wrong, but 5 moves doesn't sound like it would take very long for a fast computer. Just grep through the results for the end move you want.
It seems that ZDNet doesn't like to acknowledge any non-commercial software, and went out of their way to test commercial products wherever possible. CodeWarrior won't run on Caldera, AFAIK.:)
If you're interested in a cross-platform Unix-style shell implemented in Perl, take a look at psh (SourceForge). We can always use developers, testers, and technical writers. It's licensed like Perl (GPL and Artistic).
Actually, every operating system is secure right out of the box. (Unless you have a robotic device controlled by an insecure OS nearby, but even so the most it could do is physically hack up the CD.)
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but on an NT box, the Administrator account has full control over the system, either immediately or by taking ownership of whatever it needs. And on any other MS OSs, any user has full control over the system, because there is essentially only one user.
This is getting ridiculous. What do you expect Microsoft to do? Would you expect their spokesperson to say, "He's right; Linux is secure and Windows 2000 isn't."? Microsoft is accountable to their shareholders, so they need to say something positive about their product when confronted, even if it's irrelevant. Actually, the MS spokesperson has the moral high ground wrt spin; she mentioned only the positive aspects of her company's product, whereas Troughton gave exaggerated (and mainly unsupported) claims about Linux being the world's most secure OS and attacked Windows. Troughton actually deserved an Uninsightful moderation and the spokesperson deserved an Offtopic moderation.
Criticizing Microsoft is so easy that you should take the time to do it right.:)
Actually, "among other things" refers to what Microsoft has done to make W2K its most secure product ever. In Marketroid Standard English, that's acceptable usage.
Microsoft doesn't sell security through obscurity so much as security through impossiblity. A Windows box has almost no security against users that can execute code on the system. The functionality to remotely execute code (e.g. telnet) isn't there unless you add it. I can walk up to a Windows box and do whatever I want; still, by restricting functionality (and denying me physical access to the box) the sysadmin can make it impossible (or very difficult) for me to execute code on the system. However, once I can execute code on your Windows box, I can do just about whatever I please. Microsoft is so complacent about their security that they can't let you execute any code remotely yet, with IE and the like it's easy.
After a few times through: I am dismayed by the complaint of your company of the damage by association of Leonardo. Your company cannot have named Leonardo more that pope John Paul II can have named John! What you have marks it is terrible and must be punished. Your company deserves to be put out of the companies for a so bad act. I will make sure that each one that I know avoid your company for the remainder of my life.
Point taken about rich fools. However, my experience is that the rich fools don't need a lottery to screw them up. It's very easy to lose money; much harder to gain it. Further correspondence via email please.
A project is more than just a CVS server. It needs direction (usually), leadership (of some sort) and demand from developers. I'm sure interested parties will do something.
Slashdot Mirror
He's the one Katz would have written about. :)
Right. You could make a bit-by-bit copy of a DVD without the slightest idea of its contents. You'd need the decrypting method to view the contents. However, the manufacturers of all "licensed" DVD players/software conveniently provide the decryption for you.
He has children to support. He's not living in a cheap part of the country. I doubt he's volunteering at a commercial company. (Especially when every article about his says that he works there, as does he.)
Um, no. If I buy a plane kit, and the instructions for the engine are wrong, I don't only have myself to blame. IANAL, so I'm not sure who is legally liable in such a case.
Yes, of course, but the typical commercial license has the same sort of clause. A question might be: if Microsoft should be liable for damage due to negligence (e.g. inadequate macro virus security), should open source authors be accountable for similar negligence?
Number of pages is a meaningless statistic: most large sites have a fair amount of dynamic content nowadays. Of course, one can argue that the number of hostnames is also a meaningless statistic, but I challenge you to find a better one.
Go to http://www.netcraft.com/whats/ and enter your hostname:port. (The port, of course, defaults to 80.) You'll be revisited by their bot monthly.
Yeah, I took the data from a bunch of Netcraft surveys and put it in a cluster. I call it a "chart". :)
Point taken. :)
Is there a simple engine that I can download? All you'd need to do is brute-force the possibilities. I might be very wrong, but 5 moves doesn't sound like it would take very long for a fast computer. Just grep through the results for the end move you want.
http://www.chessbase.com/puzzle/puzzle.h tm
It seems that ZDNet doesn't like to acknowledge any non-commercial software, and went out of their way to test commercial products wherever possible. CodeWarrior won't run on Caldera, AFAIK. :)
If you're interested in a cross-platform Unix-style shell implemented in Perl, take a look at psh (SourceForge). We can always use developers, testers, and technical writers. It's licensed like Perl (GPL and Artistic).
Recompiling login would be insufficient; however, there's no reason you can't remove all accounts with UID 0 from the passwd file.
Actually, every operating system is secure right out of the box. (Unless you have a robotic device controlled by an insecure OS nearby, but even so the most it could do is physically hack up the CD.)
Yes, I realized that. Anyway, there's no "Uninsightful" category. :)
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but on an NT box, the Administrator account has full control over the system, either immediately or by taking ownership of whatever it needs. And on any other MS OSs, any user has full control over the system, because there is essentially only one user.
Criticizing Microsoft is so easy that you should take the time to do it right. :)
Actually, "among other things" refers to what Microsoft has done to make W2K its most secure product ever. In Marketroid Standard English, that's acceptable usage.
Microsoft doesn't sell security through obscurity so much as security through impossiblity. A Windows box has almost no security against users that can execute code on the system. The functionality to remotely execute code (e.g. telnet) isn't there unless you add it. I can walk up to a Windows box and do whatever I want; still, by restricting functionality (and denying me physical access to the box) the sysadmin can make it impossible (or very difficult) for me to execute code on the system. However, once I can execute code on your Windows box, I can do just about whatever I please. Microsoft is so complacent about their security that they can't let you execute any code remotely yet, with IE and the like it's easy.
I am dismayed by the complaint of your company of the damage by association of Leonardo. Your company cannot have named Leonardo more that pope John Paul II can have named John! What you have marks it is terrible and must be punished. Your company deserves to be put out of the companies for a so bad act. I will make sure that each one that I know avoid your company for the remainder of my life.
Not bad, actually.
There's nothing terribly mysterious about the lure of money. :)
Point taken about rich fools. However, my experience is that the rich fools don't need a lottery to screw them up. It's very easy to lose money; much harder to gain it.
Further correspondence via email please.
Yes, and he's posted here before. This is /., and it's no big deal.
A project is more than just a CVS server. It needs direction (usually), leadership (of some sort) and demand from developers. I'm sure interested parties will do something.